X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B90FD1D298 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:10:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86814-02 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:10:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9EFD1D120 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:10:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i1D1Aarh025809; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:10:37 -0500 (EST) To: ow Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance In-reply-to: <20040213010341.95282.qmail@web60801.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040213010341.95282.qmail@web60801.mail.yahoo.com> Comments: In-reply-to ow message dated "Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:03:41 -0800" Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:10:36 -0500 Message-ID: <25808.1076634636@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/127 X-Sequence-Number: 16818 ow writes: > Sounds pretty bad for my case. Any way to avoid the 10% scan? Can't see how we optimize your case without pessimizing more-common cases. Sorry. regards, tom lane